Replying to LO29104 --
I see. My questions to Alan (still unanswered) were driven by the fact
that what I found when I went to the site he encouraged us all to visit
was what appears to be a private firm operating under the halo effect of
the word "Standards" in its name. I could be wrong, of course, hence my
inquiry to him. In any case I, like you, am leery of self-annointed
groups that claim to be developing standards of behalf others, and so I
naturally tend to inquire about them. Personally, I happen to think that
standards in KM right now, in particular, are grossly premature. My
inquiry was in no way motivated by personal involvement in any sort of
competing, standards-making efforts. I am involved in no such efforts.
Rather, as president of KMCI, it's my job to pay attention to groups
purporting to be developing KM standards. Since many such groups are
actually private firms seeking to exploit the lack of standards for
selfish, commercial gain, I have acquired the habit of taking related
promotions seriously and -- God forbid -- I actually respond to them.
Interesting quotes from Drucker, by the way. The math map thing, too, is
also interesting. Best wishes.
>The questions you raised (as footnote) implied that you felt that the name
>Standards should be used when an institute has a charter (am I right in
>reading this implication? if I am wrong, I convey my apologies; if I am
>right the question is interesting but I would prefer it framed less
>hostilely because I think we can make the case for saying we are in a
>shifting world (a definition of which is that many standards are now the
>wrong way round)
>Let's do some referring to Drucker:
[...snip by your host...]
"Mark W. McElroy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.